The NRA’s new shooting app isn’t the hypocritical PR disaster it seems

Practice Range could serve as a helpful distraction for the gun lobby.

Yesterday, the NRA released Practice Range, a free iOS app that lets you choose from multiple guns, then practice aiming and shooting them at targets using the iPhone's built-in tilt sensor. Judging by the outraged response from all corners of the media, the release wasn't a brilliant PR move for one of the country's largest lobbying groups.

And yet the NRA has already had some success at shifting the conversation away from "guns" and back to violent video games. The new app also fits that strategy and, in doing so, might actually do more good than harm for the NRA.

Grave-spitting

TechCrunch accused the NRA of "profiteering" because the app lets players unlock weapons like AK-47s and MK-11 sniper rifles through $0.99 in-app purchases. Gizmodo and Kotaku were among those pointing out that iTunes labels the game appropriate for children ages four and up, meaning it's appropriate for kids the same age as those killed in last month's Sandy Hook massacre (Gizmodo called the rating "straight up stupid.") "Is now the best time for a National Rifle Association (NRA) 3D shooting game? We’d suggest not," wrote TheAppSide, implying that this game would be acceptable in, I don't know, a week? Six months?

The New York Post probably had the media's strongest reaction to the game's release, blaring in a headline that the title "spits on the graves of Newtown massacre victims." The Post article called out the game for its use of assault weapons like those used in the massacre and for allowing players to shoot at "coffin-shaped" targets (The targets, shown above, look more like highly stylized person-shapes, complete with red highlights for the head and heart. Not that this really makes things better...).

At first glance, Practice Range might look like a galling bit of hypocrisy on the part of the NRA. Since the organization's first press conference a week after the Sandy Hook shootings, the group has tried to shift the focus away from guns and toward societal causes for violence, including violent video games like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, and Splatterhouse. So why did it just a release a game in which you shoot things with guns? IGN called the game's launch "puzzling" in light of the group's rhetoric against gaming, and Mashable said the game "comes with a degree of irony" for the NRA.

But looked at another way, Practice Range is actually a counterpoint to much of the video game industry. Yes, the game includes guns, but you can only shoot them at inanimate, blood-free targets. What's more, the game is peppered with frequent safety messages like "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use." The main menu includes Web links to more gun safety resources. The game teaches players to shoot virtual guns, but it also teaches them how to use those virtual guns responsibly.

So Practice Range fits right into the NRA's arguments about video games' insidious effects on our society. "There's nothing wrong with guns in video games per se," the organization seems to be saying; "the problem is the way those guns are used by most of the big-money game industry in service of ultra-violent revenge fantasies. If only the game industry could use its immense influence and power to promote responsible, safe use of guns, as we have with our humble app, the world might be a different place!"

Games and their effects

As an argument, this sounds good, but it doesn't hold up. Games can and do affect people deeply every day, but they can't totally transform someone into a different being. Practice Range won't make a psychotic killer into a responsible gun owner any more than Black Ops 2 can turn a normal, law-abiding citizen into a murderous shooter. Games can have effects, but only if the player is already predisposed to be receptive to those effects. This is probably why violent crime has actually decreased markedly (PDF) since violent games rose to popularity in the early '90s, and why there seems to be no correlation between game sales and real gun violence internationally.

Despite the widespread media outrage over the release of Practice Range, even talking about the game may play right into the NRA's PR plan. That's because you can't talk about a game like this without bringing up the NRA's arguments that violent games and entertainment, rather than guns themselves, are the most important problems leading to real-world violence. That implicitly shifts the terms of the debate and puts the game industry on the defensive.

As Ian Bogost wrote in a recent Atlantic editorial, "The actual use, function, or content of games never has a place in political discussions about games. Instead, games are cogs in someone's favorite discourse machine... Once more, public opinion has been infected with the idea that video games have some predominant and necessary relationship to gun violence, rather than being a diverse and robust mass medium that is used for many different purposes, from leisure to exercise to business to education."

Whether you see Practice Range as outrageous or benign, some segments of the population already draw a permanent and immediate connection between "violent massacre" and "violent video games" in their heads. By giving more attention to that connection, Practice Range might actually be less damaging to the NRA's public image than it seems.

But looked at another way, Practice Range is actually a counterpoint to much of the video game industry. Yes, the game includes guns, but you can only shoot them at inanimate, blood-free targets. What's more, the game is peppered with frequent safety messages like "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use." The main menu includes Web links to more gun safety resources. The game teaches players to shoot virtual guns, but it also teaches them how to use those virtual guns responsibly.

So Practice Range fits right into the NRA's arguments about video games' insidious effects on our society. "There's nothing wrong with guns in video games per se," the organization seems to be saying; "the problem is the way those guns are used by most of the big-money game industry in service of ultra-violent revenge fantasies. If only the game industry could use its immense influence and power to promote responsible, safe use of guns, as we have with our humble app, the world might be a different place!"

Ian Bogost has pointed out this aspect of the NRA's previous game, NRA Gun Club for the PS2. In several pieces of writing he laid out the argument that the NRA's games tend to be generally boring (except for the avid hobbyist shooter or collector) and focused on drilling gun safety and responsible use instead of luring players in with the promise of exciting virtual violence. I think it's a perfectly valid point that encapsulates the NRA's aim with these games. Consequently I think the outrage and charges of hypocrisy over this new game are overblown and missing the point. The NRA obviously thinks that games have some kind of effect, otherwise they wouldn't bother making boring gun safety games. At the same time, their arguments about games turning kids into desensitized killers is right out of cloud cuckoo land. We can rebut their arguments about the extent of videogame influence without getting up in arms (hah!) trying to charge them with hypocrisy or poor taste.

Despite the widespread media outrage over the release of Training Range, even talking about the game may play right into the NRA's PR plan. That's because you can't talk about a game like this without bringing up the NRA's arguments that violent games and entertainment, rather than guns themselves, are the most important problems leading to real-world violence. That implicitly shifts the terms of the debate and puts the game industry on the defensive.

I agree. But before someone says "Ars is part of the problem, you're giving them free press!" the solution is never to just remain silent. That only cedes the playing field to those who decide to have a voice.

Trying to pin things on video games is a red herring, and a distraction, but you can only counter it by calling BS, not pretending it's beneath you to acknowledge.

Despite the widespread media outrage over the release of Training Range, even talking about the game may play right into the NRA's PR plan. That's because you can't talk about a game like this without bringing up the NRA's arguments that violent games and entertainment, rather than guns themselves, are the most important problems leading to real-world violence. That implicitly shifts the terms of the debate and puts the game industry on the defensive.

I agree. But before someone says "Ars is part of the problem, you're giving them free press!" the solution is never to just remain silent. That only cedes the playing field to those who decide to have a voice.

Trying to pin things on video games is a red herring, and a distraction, but you can only counter it by calling BS, not pretending it's beneath you to acknowledge.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill. The vast majority were also on pharmaceutical drugs that affect the brain's chemistry. So the real issue is either these people slipped through the cracks and should have been in a mental institution to begin with or they are being pushed over the edge by the drugs they are on. Even though, in my opinion, this is the REAL issue here, it's become a secondary or even tertiary issue in the media.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill. The vast majority were also on pharmaceutical drugs that affect the brain's chemistry. So the real issue is either these people slipped through the cracks and should have been in a mental institution to begin with or they are being pushed over the edge by the drugs they are on. Even though, in my opinion, this is the REAL issue here, it's become a secondary or even tertiary issue in the media.

The issue is whatever you're not - a gun owner, video game player, mentally ill. It's easiest to point the finger at the thing that doesn't include you.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an NRA member, a gun owner/enthusiast and I play all of the "violent video games" and watch the "violent movies" that are now being blamed for all of this. I have never shot up a school or a movie theater and I have no plans or desire to. What's the difference between me and the mass shooters? I'm not crazy.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

This is probably why violent crime has actually decreased markedly (PDF) since violent games rose to popularity in the early '90s, and why there seems to be no correlation between game sales and real gun violence internationally.

Correlation isn't causation for games vs crime, but it is for guns vs crime! (some would have you believe this.)

But looked at another way, Practice Range is actually a counterpoint to much of the video game industry. Yes, the game includes guns, but you can only shoot them at inanimate, blood-free targets. What's more, the game is peppered with frequent safety messages like "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use." The main menu includes Web links to more gun safety resources. The game teaches players to shoot virtual guns, but it also teaches them how to use those virtual guns responsibly.

So Practice Range fits right into the NRA's arguments about video games' insidious effects on our society. "There's nothing wrong with guns in video games per se," the organization seems to be saying; "the problem is the way those guns are used by most of the big-money game industry in service of ultra-violent revenge fantasies. If only the game industry could use its immense influence and power to promote responsible, safe use of guns, as we have with our humble app, the world might be a different place!"

Ian Bogost has pointed out this aspect of the NRA's previous game, NRA Gun Club for the PS2. In several pieces of writing he laid out the argument that the NRA's games tend to be generally boring (except for the avid hobbyist shooter or collector) and focused on drilling gun safety and responsible use instead of luring players in with the promise of exciting virtual violence. I think it's a perfectly valid point that encapsulates the NRA's aim with these games. Consequently I think the outrage and charges of hypocrisy over this new game are overblown and missing the point. The NRA obviously thinks that games have some kind of effect, otherwise they wouldn't bother making boring gun safety games. At the same time, their arguments about games turning kids into desensitized killers is right out of cloud cuckoo land. We can rebut their arguments about the extent of videogame influence without getting up in arms (hah!) trying to charge them with hypocrisy or poor taste.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It absolutely has a lobbing organization, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill.

Every single one? Ever? Prove it. Even if you're right, it's very easy to blame mass shootings on guns - one can't shoot a gun if one doesn't have a gun.

I'm not going to get sucked into this argument with you because I can already tell where you stand. Let me just ask you this -- if guns were banned and a forced turn-in was implemented like it was in Australia and Great Britain, do you really expect the criminals to do the same? By their very definition, criminals do not follow the law. I'll just leave it at that and bow out of the conversation before it devolves.

All those negative responses to the game work off the implicit assumption that guns are per se evil and bad, so icky that even mere knowledge of how to safely handle and operate one should be forbidden knowledge that ordinary people, including children, should not be exposed to. This is obviously a position that the NRA does not agree with (nor do I).

Vast majority of gun violence isn't perpetrated by deranged killers. It's a direct result of US gov's war on drugs which gave the incentive for organized crime and street gangs to get into the drug business and perpetrate all the associated crimes. Crooks will always flock to wherever there's money to be made and power to be gained, and they often take it and keep it with use of violence and guns.

How many kids in street gangs have been shot country-wide just in the month since the Newtown massacre? More than the number of kids killed that day, I'm sure. No one is crying about those kids, are they?

Gun's aren't a problem. Deranged killers are a problem once in a blue moon. That is of course a tragedy unto itself, but it's only a very very small part of the overall street violence.

The problem is the well intentioned drug laws, but flawed laws with severe social and criminal side effects, making people into criminals and creating rather than curbing crime. It's ridiculous.

I was there in Sarajevo when 150 people were killed by a single air burst mortar shell at a farmer's market. That was the defining moment that finally spurned the World into acting to stop the war. Never mind the 100,000 that already died in that war elsewhere.

When is the human race going to learn to use reason and logic in making BIG decisions? Leave the emotions for all those small everyday decisions.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It absolutely has a lobbing organization, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

I didn't say they didn't lobby. I said they aren't primarily funded by big corporations. They are funded by individual citizens.

They just made this to bolster their whole argument about video games being evil and irresponsible. Adn with their game they show how games with guns should be: no blood, gore, violence, or whatever. Isn't that great?

I'm a little surprised they didn't just use plain old circular targets or skeets. Of course, I don't see the point of trying to do this sort of game on a smartphone... A console? Sure. Move, Kinect, Wii, whatever. They could even track the "barrel" and tell you "keep it pointed down," "don't point it at the other player," etc. Add voice commands/questions, even... "Is the safety on?" "Yes."

I also believe that NRA is making a long-term mistake here even as they may be making short-term gains. Gamers are the future of gun owners. NRA needs to engage them, rather than alienate them. Fortunately I don't think what the NRA says has much effect on any gamer's decision on whether to get a real gun or not.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

Actually, they largely ARE a lobbying arm of the gun industry. They get tens of millions of dollars from "corporate partners," not an insignificant chunk of their total revenue, and you can be sure their lobbying activity doesn't really run afoul of the manufacturers' aims.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill.

Every single one? Ever? Prove it. Even if you're right, it's very easy to blame mass shootings on guns - one can't shoot a gun if one doesn't have a gun.

I think it's very safe to say that, yes, every single person who EVER committed a mass shooting of innocent people was seriously deranged. You're not seriously going to argue otherwise? lol

The problem has less to do with the tool than the act. Is murder with a gun somehow more egregious than murder with a hammer? Or poison? or a vehicle? All of these things have important, legal uses. Why do we single out guns?

You're illustrating the problem perfectly with your black and white analysis. This issue is simply not black and white. The main problem that we need to overcome is how to even have a debate. Instead we get morons thinking that gun control = gun prohibition.

There are in fact NRA members that want better gun laws. You don't have to be a gun hater to agree with sensible gun legislation.

And clearly gun legislation is not going to be a catch all solution to a largely cultural problem. But that cultural problem also extends into our inability to have a sane discussion -- demonstrated perfectly by your failed attempt at humor.

Pinning it on any one thing is ridiculous, but it's beyond the ability of our society to have a nuanced conversation about the topic. And the NRA is in no small part responsible for that, so they're not off the hook in my book.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

Actually, they largely ARE a lobbying arm of the gun industry. They get tens of millions of dollars from "corporate partners," not an insignificant chunk of their total revenue, and you can be sure their lobbying activity doesn't really run afoul of the manufacturers' aims.

Oh, I'm sure they get some money from them. What business doesn't donate to an organization that advances its cause? The NRA has no higher moral authority than any other lobbying organization. I'm just saying I think you'd be hard pressed to find another lobbying organization that has many INDIVIDUAL members funding it than the NRA.

I'd just like to point out that the NRA isn't some lobby group that's funded by the gun companies. It has roughly four million members who pay annual dues to the organization.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It absolutely has a lobbing organization, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

I didn't say they didn't lobby. I said they aren't primarily funded by big corporations. They are funded by individual citizens.

Again, just because they have dues-paying members doesn't mean they aren't also funded, "primarily" or otherwise, by gun manufacturers. I'd like to try to verify your claims by looking at their financials, but I can't get to their site from where I am. Even I could, as a private organization, I'd be surprised if they had any public disclosure of this.

As a member, do you have access to their financials, and if so, can you summarize their top 10 sources of income for us?

I find it ironic that guns got next to no attention when a border patrol agent was shot and killed as a result of the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, but they're getting plenty after Sandy Hook. Is there an age limit or body count before these things are considered issues that the government has to deal with?

Yes, the game includes guns, but you can only shoot them at inanimate, blood-free targets. What's more, the game is peppered with frequent safety messages like "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use." The main menu includes Web links to more gun safety resources. The game teaches players to shoot virtual guns, but it also teaches them how to use those virtual guns responsibly.

Is the NRA actually suggesting that education of proper gun use/storage/safety would have prevented these mass shootings? Even with tough gun policy an unstable motivated person is still going to find a method to obtain a gun. Calling for the public and policy makers to discuss the real cause of these shootings is likely to drown out by the vocal extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill. The vast majority were also on pharmaceutical drugs that affect the brain's chemistry. So the real issue is either these people slipped through the cracks and should have been in a mental institution to begin with or they are being pushed over the edge by the drugs they are on. Even though, in my opinion, this is the REAL issue here, it's become a secondary or even tertiary issue in the media.

I think mental health isn't being treated properly in this country. Having said that if your goal is to reduce mass shootings (as opposed to just gun violence in general) then I think the debate over military style weapons in the hands of the general population is rightfully at the top of the priority heap.

I was there in Sarajevo when 150 people were killed by a single air burst mortar shell at a farmer's market. That was the defining moment that finally spurned the World into acting to stop the war. Never mind the 100,000 that already died in that war elsewhere.

Honest question: was that the one where the Bosnians shelled their own people in order to spur the rest of the world to intervene? I was in Bosnia in 1995/6 as part of that operation.

Trying to pin it on just the guns is also a red herring. Every single person who has committed a mass shooting has been straight up deranged and mentally ill. The vast majority were also on pharmaceutical drugs that affect the brain's chemistry. So the real issue is either these people slipped through the cracks and should have been in a mental institution to begin with or they are being pushed over the edge by the drugs they are on. Even though, in my opinion, this is the REAL issue here, it's become a secondary or even tertiary issue in the media.

This is what happens when the government cuts "entitlements" in their push to fix the debt problems.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.